The Padian Study – Sex is not the Problem
Padian – 10 Year Study in Northern Calif [attached]While these ‘researchers’ were watching, for six years of up, down, in and out sex, nobody managed to trick their surrogate marker assay (that’s “hiv test” in the press), from negative to positive.
- “We followed up 175 HIV-discordant couples [one partner tests positive, one negative] over time, for a total of approximately 282 couple-years of follow up… No transmission [of HIV] occurred among the 25% of couples who did not use their condoms consistently, nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up…”
- “We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study [nobody became HIV positive]…This evidence argues for low infectivity in the absence of either needle sharing and/or other cofactors.”
That is, these people were having sex with “positives” for six years, and managed not to become “positive” themselves.
Why the quotes around “positive?” Because the tests are actually more or less “reactive.”
“Positive” or “negative” is implied, (not inferred) later, on the basis of the perception of “risk” in the person being “tested.”
A lot of quotes, but there are so many undefined, overly-broad, and imprecise words used in Aids-speak, it’s necessary to take a step back and understand what it is they’re actually talking about.
So, Padian. Zero seroconversions in 6 years of humping, (in every orifice, she records). But the reality is, that the tests are surrogate markers – stand-ins. They don’t record the presence of a specific particle anyway.
They grab a variety of proteins, with synthetic molecules that are manufactured these days, in bacteria, according to consensus agreements of how much they ‘should’ weigh.
The proteins have shown an affinity for just about any condition of illness, and even many non-illnesses. So, pregnant women, drug users, hemophiliacs, children, mice, dogs, goats and cows, all have proteins that trick the tests into being “reactive.”
“Positive” comes later, when you think you’re testing someone who is “at risk.”
It’s not science, but it’s popular, nonetheless.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment